Consistency proper process and a no surprises approach must reign supreme in planning

Consistency, proper process and a no surprises approach must reign supreme in planningNewcastle is poised for growth and large-scale urban regeneration thanks to the East End redevelopment project but it will only be realised if policymakers stick to proper planning processes, says the Property Council’s NSW regional director, Andrew Fletcher.Responding to reports that NSW Planning Minister Rob Stokes has instructed UrbanGrowth to reconsider building heights for its East End redevelopment, Fletcher argues that a lack of faith in the planning system will cause Newcastle’s investment pipeline to run dry.”Newcastle should aspire to have world-class redevelopments within heritage precincts, but bold vision, increased density and flexibility of design is required,” Fletcher says.”As with any capital investment, investors need certainty and changing the goal posts halfway through the match can make that capital take flight to safer havens.”The Newcastle Inner-City Residents Alliance (NICRA) has expressed concern about building heights of the three proposed towers.Revised planning controls for the city, issued by then planning minister Pru Goward in 2014, set the maximum building height for the tallest tower at approximately 17 storeys.”When NICRA advocates for reduced building heights, it needs to understand that this comes at a price that will be paid by the wider community,” Fletcher says.”Of course it’s right and proper that the Minister give time to groups like NICRA, but it is equally important that the planning instrument and the process be respected.”The GPT Group and UrbanGrowth NSW have released concept plans which take advantage of the new building heights and include enhancements to the public domain – enhancements at risk if building heights are limited, Fletcher says.”Reducing the building heights on which those plans are based will require a complete rethink by developers and will limit what they can provide in terms of public amenity.”Fletcher says the number of dwellings may have to be scaled back, and the ability to preserve the heritage site is also in jeopardy.”When heritage sites are given a new purpose for which there is consumer demand, people can again experience those icons in very personal ways. With locals and visitors spending money on products and services offered on-site, there is sufficient revenue for heritage conservation and investors. It’s a win-win for the city,” Fletcher adds.In Victoria the Property Council has also expressed its deep concern over unforeseen and significant changes to laws governing height and density, known as C262, will have upon future investment in Melbourne.Victorian executive director Jennifer Cunich said “This shock decision will ‘blow out of the water’ any investor proposals which were on the cusp of being lodged with the Government.”At a time of rising unemployment and a slowing economy, this policy announcement seems counterintuitive.”The Minister’s decision to impose C262 upon Melbourne’s CBD also appears to be inconsistent with his claim to be agnostic on height.”Melbourne’s CBD should be ‘height restriction free’ outside of the already identified sites of public significance such as the retail core, community heritage, designated flightpaths and the Yarra River’s south bank.”The Government should be encouraging new building design throughout Melbourne rather than creating new ways to suppress innovation,” Cunich concludes.